On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 07:12:19PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 08:54:20PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 06:51:00PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 08:48:54PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > > > > > Acked-by: Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > I didn't ack this but Andy did (or at least the for-5.8 version)? > > > Andy said he needs Fixes field to get his RB tag. You said: > > "This and patch 4 look good ..." Normally this means to get Acked-by. > > Unless someone explicitly gives you a tag for something you shouldn't > usually assume that one applies, especially with maintainers giving acks > on their own trees since that has process meaning - it's saying that the > maintainer is OK with it being applied to some other tree which is > something it's worth being careful about. Hm, it depends on maintainer and sub-system then. I did such "looks good" -> Acked-by conversions before. Not that many, but noone argued. [1] also says it's sometimes possible. Anyway, sorry for inconvenience. I'll get to remember that I'd better ask explicit acked-by from you, no assumption. [1] Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst -Sergey > > On the other hand if someone says "if you do X you can add tag Y" and > you do X then you can generally add the tag if you do Y.